Greenland 2: Migration. A Review (Review #2165)

GREENLAND 2: MIGRATION

It is a curiosity that Greenland 2: Migration is simultaneously a hopeful and dystopian film. I found Greenland 2 working to be deeper and more meditative on this family's great crisis. I wonder though if by now, people would rather watch action over meditation. 

It has been five years since the asteroid Clarke has destroyed much of Earth. There are pockets of survivors throughout the world. Some eke out a living on the surface despite the radiation. Some have survived in bunkers. In the latter group is the Garrity family. Garrity patriarch John (Gerard Butler) goes to the surface often in search of supplies or potential survivors. His wife, Allison (Morena Baccarin) is one of the leaders at Thule Airbase in Greenland, where they took refuge all those years ago. They diabetic son, Nathan (Roman Griffith Davis) attempts to live life the best that he can. He likes a girl. He sneaks off onto the surface. He is not happy on Thule.

Fortunately, or not, a sudden earthquake destroys Thule and forces everyone to flee. The Garrity family manages to board a small, abandoned rescue ship along with others. Their eventual goal is to reach the Clarke Crater in France. Here, the Earth is rumored to be growing again. However, in this case, getting there is not half the fun.

First stop is Liverpool, where one of their compatriots is killed when he cannot produce an identity pass and attempts to enter their base anyway. Now, it's off to London to reunite with Mackenzie Matthews (Sophie Thompson). She is an old friend of Allison who has been caring for Alzheimer's patients. She gives them a car and warning to drive through Dover to cross the English Channel. Great Britain is a dangerous place, full of marauders. They take out their friend, Dr. Casey Amina (Amber Rose Revah). 

The Garrity family is surprised to find that the English Channel is now filled with land. There are still many dangers to cross to get into France. Fortunately, they come across Denis Laurent (William Abadie), a Frenchman who has managed to survive on the surface. He gives them information about the war going on between those defending the Clarke Crater and those determined to force their way in. He also begs them to take his daughter Camille (Nelia Valery Da Costa) with them. An old family friend is a commander with the troops. There are still many dangers before they can get near the Clarke Crater. Not all will survive, but will their journey be in vain or is there hope yet for the world?

I neither loved nor disliked the first Greenland. It was not a great film. It was not a particularly entertaining film. It was a curious hybrid of action and contemplation. Still, I thought well enough of it to think slightly well of Greenland. Greenland 2: Migration is pretty much in the exact same category as its predecessor. 

I did not love it. I did not hate it. I found it aiming for something deeper and richer. It did not always hit that mark. However, I cannot fault a film for at least trying. I was surprised that Greenland 2: Migration is actually almost a half hour shorter than Greenland. My surprise comes from the fact that Greenland 2 gives us a lot of things going on. There are tidal waves. There are earthquakes. There are many deaths going all around. 

That, I think, is why Greenland 2 failed at the box office. For all the Sturm und Drang of this dying world, the film was quite fond of killing side characters. We are introduced to such figures as Adam Shaw (Trond Fausa Aurvag), Obi (Ken Nwuso) and Dr. Amina. Each of them is killed off once they do whatever Mitchell LaFortune and Chris Sparling's screenplay needed them to do. Greenland 2 failed to see what has doomed other films: you cannot ask audiences to feel emotion for characters we barely know. It becomes almost a bit of a running gag: as soon as someone encounters the Garrity family, they have a high chance of ending up dead.

Even those who somehow manage to survive this cursed family somehow are just there. I cannot recall if Mackenzie is from the last movie. Even if she were, her appearance adds up to very little. 

There are other elements that leave the viewer a bit disengaged with Greenland 2. Throughout their entire journey, Nathan's diabetes is never touched on. We do not ever know what happened to the girl that he liked while at the Thune Airbase. The efforts to make things tense and exciting almost always fall flat. We get lots of tidal waves and earthquakes and battles. However, none of them have the impact that Greenland 2 aimed for.

Greenland 2 had some dodgy visual effects that would not be out of place on a SyFy Channel feature. The acting too was similarly limited. One never thinks of Gerard Butler as a dramatic actor. He is a big, burly Scotsman. I will give him credit for making a greater effort to make John's plight and concern for his family something to move audiences with. I think this is one of Butler's better performances. Is it a great performance? Probably not. It is, however, a good one. Monica Baccarin looked less than enthused at being there. I was not convinced that she wanted to be there. Baccarin looked as if she was going through the motions. In fairness, the part was not the greatest for her, so I cut her some slack. Roman Griffin Davis did well as Nathan. I think that he was not given much to do, but he acquitted himself well here.

Director Ric Roman Waugh got everyone through this serviceable production. The acting was acceptable. The pacing was steady. The visual effects worked though nothing spectacular. David Buckley's score matched the dour, morose world of Greenland 2. That also applies to Martin Ahlgren's cinematography. 

Greenland 2: Migration is a bit despairing about the world. It tries to give the viewer hope at the end. However, so much misery and death and chaos was thrown at us that it becomes a bit too heavy for viewers. I appreciated everyone's efforts. I do not necessarily see why we needed a Greenland 2. I, however, did not hate the film. It is fine enough but nothing that will have us calling out for a Greenland 3. 

DECISION: C+

Mortal Kombat II: A Review

MORTAL KOMBAT II

I have found that when judging a film's success or failure, one has to consider the target audience. I am not the target audience for any Mortal Kombat film adaptation. I was surprised at how much I disliked the 2021 Mortal Kombat film, not having seen any prior Mortal Kombat film. I was equally surprised at how much I accepted Mortal Kombat II. I cannot say I enjoyed Mortal Kombat II. In some ways it is bad. I say "accepted" because Mortal Kombat II does not bother pretending to be anything other than fan service. I cannot fault a film for hitting its expectations. 

I do not think that I can give a solid plot synopsis as I barely understand the overall mythology. Here is what I understand. Shao Khan (Martyn Ford) has conquered many worlds. His newest conquest of Edenia has been bloody. Princess Kitana (Adeline Rudolph) is now his unwilling heir. She has trained for battle, with her bodyguard/friend Jade (Tati Gabrielle) by her side.

Shao Khan now plots to conquer a new universe, which includes our Earth. These conquests are done by one-on-one combats to the death or Mortal Kombat. Powerful sorcerer Lord Raiden (Tadanobu Asano) and one of his warriors, Sonya Blade (Jessica McNamee) have found another Earth champion to participate. It is Johnny Cage (Karl Urban), action film star who has seen better days. The star of such epics as Uncaged Fury now ekes out a living at conventions. Mostly forgotten, Johnny Cage is dismissive of what he initially thinks are way-out cosplayers. 

Nevertheless, Cage is taken to fight for his world. He and others working alongside Lord Raiden face off in a series of battles against Shao Khan, who has become immortal. There is, however, an enemy hidden in plain sight against both Shao Khan and Lord Raiden. Not all will live for the ultimate battle. Johnny Cage must find his inner strength to be the champion he is meant to be. Who will triumph in this Mortal Kombat?

I confess to having no interest in seeing Mortal Kombat II and probably would have skipped it altogether. It was at the persistent insistence of a coworker who enjoys this video game that got me, very reluctantly, to go. Please do not think poorly of me if I got elements of Mortal Kombat II wrong. I did my best to follow along with all the goings-on. After a while though, I gave up. I instead focused on the pretty colors and the grandiose nature of Mortal Kombat II. I have no memory of the previous Mortal Kombat film; therefore, I genuinely cannot say who is back or even how Mortal Kombat II relates to Mortal Kombat 2021. I also have very little to no idea who the various people are. As such, all these names flying about would be a bit lost to me.

Having said all that, I figure that Mortal Kombat fans would enjoy Mortal Kombat II. They will understand and appreciate the various figures flying and fighting around. If a film is built for fans, then Mortal Kombat II should satisfy the majority of them.

In a curious way, I admire Mortal Kombat II's efforts to make more drama and put some stakes into this epic series of battles. Jeremy Slater's screenplay pushed hard to give the various characters dare I say greater depth. Cole Young (Lewis Tan), if memory serves correct, mentioned how he had a wife and child whom he might never see again. Then again, that might have been Jax Briggs (Mehcad Brooks). Whoever it was, such an element was mentioned I figure to make a potential end more tragic.

It did not hit me because I do not recall seeing any of their families. Merely mentioning them does not automatically give Mortal Kombat II any great stakes on any character's fate. This applies to Karl Urban's Johnny Cage. Urban is probably the biggest name here. I heard someone in my circle complain that Urban wasn't pretty enough to be Johnny Cage.

I think Slater and director Simon McQuoid were going for another angle with our favorite Mortal Kombat figure. This Johnny Cage was not a cocky, brash youth. He was still cocky and brash. However, he was also grizzled, a bit despondent. We see this after the Uncaged Fury trailer that we are treated to. The camera pulls away to show us an older Johnny Cage, ignored at a comic con's autograph alley. He can only look with a mix of weariness and frustration on how some influencer has people flocking to them while he sits amongst his past glories. 

Urban did well as Cage. He is weary, a bit clueless and doing the best he can while seeing himself as a bit of a failure. Urban makes him both excessively confident and aware of his shortcomings. I would not say that Urban gives a great performance. He gave what I would say is the correct performance. 

Out of everyone else, I think Adeline Rudolph also did well as Kitana, our warrior princess. I think that, if I thought more on it, Mortal Kombat II is more Kitana than Johnny focused. The film starts with her, and she is most of the epic final battle. I do not think that this is a terrible thing. I am not brimming with enthusiasm about it either.

As I think on Mortal Kombat II, I think that it works for what it is. This is something that Mortal Kombat fans would enjoy. I am not a Mortal Kombat fan as I rarely if ever played the game. It is not as bloody as I thought it would be. It is a bit longer than I think that it should be. Overall, it is fine if this is what people enjoy. I did not particularly enjoy it, but I figure that it works for its target audience. 

It does at least end with Techno Syndrome aka the Mortal Kombat theme. That is something that I have always enjoyed, so there's that. 

DECISION: C+

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man: A Review

FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN

Does he? Does Frankenstein really meet the Wolf Man? Yes, though anyone thinking that Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man would be a clash of titans might be disappointed. Now, we find that our monster will never be a solo act. Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man works well in tying two franchises together.

Graverobbers have forced their way into the Talbot family crypt. Looking for a ring, they desecrate the tomb of the late Lawrence Stuart Talbot. They remove the wolfsbane from the coffin, which was a bad choice. Now, with no wolfsbane and a full moon, the apparently dead Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney, Jr.) has risen to kill as the Wolf Man. Talbot has no control over this curse and carries great guilt about it. 

Eventually, he finds himself in a Cardiff hospital. Dr. Frank Mannering (Patric Knowles) and Inspector Owen (Dennis Hoey) do not believe Talbot's wild stories of lycanthropy. Owen does not even believe that Talbot is who he says that he is. It takes some more investigating and another killing to slowly change their minds.

Desperate to rid himself of his curse, Talbot seeks out the Gypsy Maleva (Maria Ouspenskaya) for help. She cannot help him but thinks someone else can. That person would be Dr. Ludwig Frankenstein. Unfortunately, the local townsfolk do not welcome Gypsies or anyone with them. Another full moon causes Talbot to flee into the Frankenstein Castle ruins. Here, he discovers Frankenstein's Monster (Bela Lugosi) frozen in ice. The Monster might be a help to Talbot. Unfortunately, the blind and mute Monster cannot help him find Dr. Frankenstein's notes. 

Also helpful might be Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Illona Massey). Talbot poses as someone willing to buy Castle Frankenstein. The mayor (Lionel Atwill) would be happy to be an intermediary, but the Baroness soon finds that the buyer wants her late grandfather and father's notes. They do, however, develop an attraction to each other. However, Talbot's delicate mental state and the reappearance of Frankenstein's Monster cause havoc for all concerned. So does the return of Dr. Mannering, who has searched for Talbot. 

At last, more mad science experiments can begin. Talbot talks Mannering into transferring his life into the Monster, freeing himself from the wolf man's curse. Elsa and Mannering secretly decide that both should be destroyed. However, curiosity gets the better of Mannering. This leads to a showdown between Frankenstein's Monster and the Wolf Man. Will everyone survive?

Should one be technical that it was Frankenstein's Monster and not Frankenstein himself who met the Wolf Man? Maybe we can stretch things out in saying that because Baroness Elsa Frankenstein had an interest in Lawrence Talbot, Frankenstein did indeed meet the Wolf Man. Now I'm just being silly. It is interesting though that in Son of Frankenstein, Baron Wolf von Frankenstein commented that most people called the Monster "Frankenstein". Now, that is exactly what Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man does. 

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man runs a brisk 72 minutes. Despite that, it technically is the third longest film in this franchise, tying it with The Bride of Frankenstein. Nevertheless, the film has a lot within that runtime in terms of plot. 

As a side note, Son of Frankenstein is the longest Frankenstein film at 99 minutes. Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein goes ten minutes longer than The Bride of Frankenstein and this film. The original Frankenstein and House of Frankenstein are two minutes shorter than this film. The shortest Universal Frankenstein films both run a surprising 67 minutes: The Ghost of Frankenstein and House of Dracula. 

I was concerned that I might not follow some of that plot because I have not seen a Lon Chaney, Jr. Wolf Man film prior to this. However, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man does a good job of covering the basics to where I understood Lawrence's plight. I understand that some plot elements changed between The Wolf Man and Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. That, I do not know. I do not think, however, that any changes in canon will alter one's enjoyment of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.   

Lon Chaney, Jr. does a good job reprising his role as the tortured Lawrence Talbot/Wolf Man. He makes Talbot a sympathetic figure, one haunted by guilt and fear, desperate to escape his doomed life. There was one moment where Chaney did look a bit silly. That was during a Wine Festival where he angrily denounces a local singer for singing a song about eternal life. On the whole though, Lon Chaney, Jr. did a very good job as the good man turned monster.

I think that Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is mostly well-acted by everyone. I think the one possible exception is that of Bela Lugosi as the Frankenstein Monster. That criticism of Lugosi's performance, however, comes with a lot of caveats. Lugosi was given very little to do. In fact, he does not appear until about 35 minutes into the film. He also is hampered by both Curt Siodmack's screenplay and the previous Frankenstein film.

One does not need to necessarily know The Wolf Man to follow the plot here. One, however, would benefit tremendously from knowing what came before Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. In The Ghost of Frankenstein, Bela Lugosi's Ygor had been transplanted into the Monster. However, the Monster became blind because Ygor and the Monster's blood types are not compatible. In keeping with that, Lugosi's Frankenstein Monster correctly stumbles about. However, the end result is a curious walk with his arms sticking out and him shuffling along. The cliche of the Monster with arms outstretched and moving stiffly probably came from this performance. 

The decision to make the Monster mute, however, came from either Siodmack or director Roy William Neill. That also hampered Lugosi's performance. Perhaps it made sense to keep the Monster mute. Audiences might have roared with laughter hearing the Monster speak with a Hungarian accent. They might not have remembered the Ygor/Monster transference to make them understand that it was Ygor inside the Monster. 

Lugosi had both his arms tied behind his back when it came to his performance, so to speak. He could not speak. He technically was playing a blind creature. He was also almost inconsequential to the plot. It is a strange irony that Bela Lugosi had been originally cast as The Monster when Frankenstein was first announced. He ultimately did not play the part, though the exact reasons are unclear. Now, when he got to play the Monster, Lugosi was given a thankless role and did what he could with it.

Much better were the other roles. Patric Knowles did well as Dr. Mannering. He made him into a sensible man of science who still accepted Talbot's truth when it was presented to him. It is to Knowles' credit that he made that last-minute shift to try to bring the Monster fully to life slightly believable. I figure that it needed to happen for the plot to happen. It did not quite work, but Knowles tried. 

It is a surprise, given how dashing Knowles was, that he never became a star.

Lionel Atwill continues to be our Frankenstein utility infielder. He makes his third of five appearances in this franchise. His role as the mayor of longsuffering Vasaria is small. However, he shows a sympathetic side to the accursed House of Frankenstein. Maria Ouspenskaya reprises her The Wolf Man role as Maleva the Gypsy Queen. She makes Maleva into someone attempting to help but finding that anti-Gypsy prejudice blocks her. 

Technically Maleva was not a Gypsy Queen. I just like saying that.

Probably the worst of the performances was Ilona Massey as the Baroness Frankenstein. In her defense, it was not a particularly strong part. However, she brought little to the role.

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is entertaining and short. It is not a great film but one that keeps within this franchise. Despite the title, the film is more about The Wolf Man than about Frankenstein's Monster. It was not a battle royale but a nice get-together of monsters who lead such interesting lives. 

DECISION: B-

UNIVERSAL FRANKENSTEIN FILMS

Frankenstein (1931)

The Bride of Frankenstein

Son of Frankenstein

The Ghost of Frankenstein

House of Frankenstein

House of Dracula

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

A Royal Scandal (1945): A Review

A ROYAL SCANDAL

Who better to portray the lusty Czarina of All the Russias than the outrageous Tallulah Bankhead? A Royal Scandal makes a good go of trying to be a screwball comedy amidst the Czarist Court. It did not quite hit the mark. However, it barely squeaked by. 

There is perpetual intrigue within the palace halls. Chancellor Nicolai Ilyitch (Charles Coburn) wants nothing but a firm treaty with France. General Ronsky (Sig Ruman) wants to install his idiot nephew Boris (Grady Sutton) as the new head of the Palace Guard. Captain Sukov (Mischa Auer) wants nothing more than to have the West Gate secured. 

Czarina Catherine II (Bankhead) is a bit mercurial when it comes to everything and everyone. She has only one friend, her lady-in-waiting Countess Anna (Anne Baxter). A surprise friend is the dashing Lieutenant Alexie Chernoff (William Eythe). Fanatically loyal to "Mother Russia" (a term that Her Majesty winces at), he storms his way into a private audience to warn her of a plot. Fortunately, Catherine and Nicolai already knew of the plot. However, the lusty Kate takes a shine to the luscious officer. That he and Countess Anne are engaged is not important to Her Majesty.

The poor French diplomat (Vincent Price) is kept forever waiting while Alexei and Catherine find themselves working on very intimate terms. Eventually, Anne becomes so enraged that she defies Catherine to her face, bringing about an exile. Alexei, full of youthful vigor, proposes a series of reforms to the empire. These reforms appall the Chancellor. However, Ronsky, no longer tied to his dimwit relation, looks to Alexei to seize the throne. Catherine has elevated him higher and higher, and now is the head of the Palace Guard. Who will Alexei side with? Will Catherine keep her crown and her head?

A Royal Scandal was originally meant to be directed by Ernst Lubitsch. He, however, became ill and had to withdraw from directing the film. Lubitsch is listed instead as the producer. A Royal Scandal, this intended screwball comedy, was directed instead by Otto Preminger. I struggle imagining that there could have been a worse choice to direct a fast-paced witty film than the man who brought us such films as Laura, Anatomy of Murder and Exodus. Granted, the last two were far into the future. However, Preminger seems wildly out of place directing what I figure was intended as some kind of madcap romp.

Edwin Justus Mayer and Bruno Frank's adaptation of the play The Czarina gives the actors a lot of lines that are meant to be funny. "That's the trouble with France, too many Louis!" Chancellor Nicolai observes early on. Later on, Nicolai takes umbrage at Alexei's offer to give him access to Catherine in exchange for money. "You can't bribe the Chancellor of Russia!" he exclaims. Doing a quick double take, Nicolai adds, "Not with fifty rubles". 

Alexei and Catherine discuss his ideas for improving the lot of the peasants. "They are the backbone of the nation", he says. "Yes, I know. There's nothing like a good peasant", Her Majesty replies. Catherine is astonished to find one of Alexei's proposed reforms in the trash. Commenting on this "Edict 52", she asks what it is about. "I don't know, Your Majesty. I didn't read it". "You didn't read it?! They when did you throw it away?" she exclaims. He replies instantly, "I read the other fifty-one".

These lines, and others, indicate that A Royal Scandal was intended to be fast-paced, zippy and full of quips. The actors delivered them the best way that they could. However, it was always a bit off. The pacing was just a beat off. Somehow, it played as if it were a play. One almost suspects that Preminger expected laughter from the audience and made room for them on the screen. However, the efforts to be a bit deadpan ended up making A Royal Scandal a bit dead itself. 

This is reflected in some of the acting. Vincent Price had a small role as the French ambassador. Sporting a French accent that makes Inspector Clouseau sound like Alain Delon, it leaned way too heavily on farce. It was a good thing that Price was not much in A Royal Scandal. He was not terrible. Instead, he seemed rather forced in his efforts to make the ambassador funny.

More surprising is how Anne Baxter leaned into the broadness that pushed A Royal Scandal down. She seemed forced and exaggerated in her scenes with Eythe. She was much better when working with Bankhead and Coburn. There did not seem to be that much stiffness there.

William Eythe was pleasant enough and handsome enough as the courtier who turns Catherine's head. He was fine. He was not great. He was not terrible. 

The two standouts were Charles Coburn and Tallulah Bankhead. Coburn made a great effort to make the Chancellor funny. Preminger did not direct him or anyone well, but Coburn acquitted himself respectfully. Tallulah Bankhead never became a film star. Here, however, she made Catherine into this somewhat scatterbrained figure. She was no bellowing tyrant. Instead, she was haughty, sometimes unaware of how things sounded. She came as close as anyone to capturing the attempts to make A Royal Scandal witty and fast-paced.    

A Royal Scandal has nice sets and costumes befitting this type of film. It also has a very jolly score from Alfred Newman. In many ways, everything in A Royal Scandal is there to make it a sparkling comedy. However, something was missing. Maybe it was the Lubitsch Touch. The film ended up playing like a weird imitation of a Lubitsch film. 

A Royal Scandal is not bad. Tallulah Bankhead and Charles Coburn do lift the project, however, slightly. It is barely passable and leaves one wondering what could have been if it had a better director. 

DECISION: C+

CATHERINE II FEATURE FILMS & TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS

The Scarlet Empress (1931)

The Rise of Catherine the Great (1931)

Young Catherine (1991)

Catherine the Great (1995)

Catherine the Great (2019)

The Great (2020-2023)

Catherine the Great: The 2019 Miniseries

CATHERINE THE GREAT

In truth, the Russian sovereign Catherine II was not Russian but German. History, however, has intertwined this minor German princess as Catherine the Great, Czarina and Autocrat of All the Russias. She has been the subject of many films and television projects. In 2019, Dame Helen Mirren returned to her own Russian roots to portray this legendary historic figure. Catherine the Great has a lot of sex and appears to want to shock with its four-letter words. It is not bad but far from what it could have been.

Two years after the coup that brought her to power, Empress Catherine II (Mirren) still has to contend with forces that could bring her down. There is the mysterious "Prisoner Number One", who may have a legitimate claim to the Russian throne. There is the mysterious soldier, Mirovich (Lucas Englander), loyal to Prisoner Number One. 

Then there is Count Grigory Orlov (Richard Roxburgh). He is one of the men who helped her overthrow her loutish husband, Peter III. He is also Catherine's current lover. Grigory and his brother Alexei (Kevin R. McNally) always remind her that they put her on the throne. The suggestion is that they can pull her off. The Orlov Brothers scheme and scheme away, making snide remarks about everyone out of earshot. That includes the newest member of Court. It is another Grigory: Grigory Potemkin (Jason Clarke). Brash, daring and belligerent, Potemkin is quickly besotted by our Autocrat. 

That does not stop him from schtupping her BFF, Countess Bruce (Gina McKee). Eventually, Potemkin bends the royal ear. He also bends other things for both Mother Russias. One person who cannot bend is the frustrated heir, Prince Paul (Joseph Quinn). He still hero worships his late father. He also detests his mother and is the only man in Russia who does not see that his wife, Natalia (Georgina Beedle) is screwing Paul's best friend, Count Razumovsky (Phil Dunster). 

Orlov soon becomes indispensable to Her Majesty inside and outside the royal bedchamber. He leads her armies to triumphs in Crimea and against the Turks. He also is imperious, haughty and prone to anger against all his enemies. The Orlovs are bitter foes. He is able to outmaneuver them. The Czarevitch is another enemy, though to be fair Paul is a very bitter boy, trashing about hither and yon. As Catherine continues her struggle to stay in power over Russia and the various men in her life, she fails to see how her need for power has made her abandon her early liberalism. The woman who once corresponded with Voltaire now burns his books. Personal tragedy hits this great love story of Catherine and Grigory, but will she get the heir that she wants or the one who manages to stay?

I think Catherine the Great thinks itself daring with all the sex scenes and f-bombs going off all over the place. I figure that Catherine and her Court were not immune from letting out a torrent of vulgarities and bed-hopping back in the day. However, Catherine the Great seemed oddly fixated on the sex and swearing and less on the political machinations within the Winter Palace.

Screenwriter Nigel Williams and director Philip Martin have a very surface level look at this debauched world. Episode One of the four-episode miniseries ends with a drag ball. The sight of the Orlov Brothers in dresses and wigs while Catherine and Potemkin are cutting a little rug to Russian music is a sight to behold. It is a curious sight though, not helped by an effort at a Barry Lyndon-like cinematography.

It is curious that Catherine the Great is dominated by a lot of voiceovers of Mirren's Catherine and Clarke's Potemkin reading their letters to each other. We get many such scenes and the added scenes of riders passing those letters to and from our lovers. 

Somehow, Catherine the Great does not seem all that interested in things outside the nocturnal. Events like Pugachev's Rebellion or the killing of the unfortunate Prisoner Number One (Czar Ivan VI) do not seem to register. They happen almost because they have to. The miniseries just does not spend much if any time on them.

Take Pugachev (Paul Kaye). He pops in for a bit in Episode One, then a bit more in Episode Two. In what I figure Catherine the Great intended as a great moment Her Majesty appears before Pugachev's followers while he rants in a cage. Here, the peasants suddenly began to kowtow to the Czarina. Why? It does not matter. 

Catherine the Great is worth only what Dame Helen Mirren brings to the role. She brings a great mix of haughtiness and vulnerability to our Mother Russia. She is coy and playful when Matushka (Grigory's pet name for the Empress) is with her Grishenka (her nickname for Potemkin). She can also be ruthless with him when needed. "I own you. Don't forget that", she reminds her paramour, enraged at having been essentially scolded before her council. Mirren shifts so well into the Czarina's mercurial nature. She makes her efforts to build a rapport with Paul and her grandson Alexander believable, even as she plots against the former. 

The rest of the cast is not terrible. They are just hampered by their one-note roles. Jason Clarke is an interesting choice as the brash, arrogant Potemkin. I thought all he did was shout and bluster. Granted, that is how the character was. After a while, though, that grows boring. The same goes for Kevin McNally and Richard Roxburgh as Alexie and Grigory Orlov. Almost all their scenes consisted of Alexie telling Grigory not to f-it up. Whether it was Grigory's stud status or a political negotiation, it was pretty much the same. Joseph Quinn's Czarevitch Paul was better, but he too did nothing but skulk about and whine. 

Again, I get that is how the role was written and directed. Again, it gets rote.

Catherine the Great does have some beautiful moments. The battle of Ushakov is a standout. The costumes and sets are nice. 

Ultimately though, Catherine the Great failed to live up to its title. It was more Catherine the OK. 

5/10

CATHERINE II FEATURE FILMS & SPECIALS

The Rise of Catherine the Great (1934)

The Scarlet Empress (1934)

A Royal Scandal (1945)

Young Catherine (1991)

Catherine the Great (1995)

The Great (2020-2023)

The Unbreakable Boy: A Review

THE UNBREAKABLE BOY

Well, they tried. 

That was how I felt after finishing The Unbreakable Boy. This story aims at the heart. Like our title character at the end, his aim fell a bit short. Still, at least he tried.

Narrated mostly in voiceover by our title character, we hear from young Richard Austin LaRette (Jacob Laval). Richard goes primarily by either Auz or AuzMan. He is a very, very chipper young man. He fills us with almost miniscule details about all sorts of things. There is a reason for that.

AuzMan has two conditions. The first is that he is autistic. The second is osteogenesis imperfecta, which is also known as brittle bone disease. His OI is inherited from his mother, Teresa (Meghann Fahy). Teresa met AuzMan's father Scott (Zachary Levi) and in a whirlwind romance he knocked her up thirteen years prior. Teresa did not inform him about her own OI until later in their relationship. She also had not informed him that she had been married twice before.

For his part, Richard does not seem to follow that he is slipping into being an alcoholic. He has his own secret in that he still talks to his imaginary friend Joe (Drew Powell). All this AuzMan informs us in his own chipper way. Scott does his best to bond with Austin, but his efforts keep flopping. He keeps struggling to stop accidents that injure AuzMan. Austin's autism also blocks Scott's connection to his firstborn. The bottle and the bars are his only sources of respite apart from talking to Joe.

AuzMan continues through life cheerful and cheerfully oblivious to things for the most part. He is forced to stay at a psychiatric hospital when in an uncharacteristic fit attempts to strangle his younger brother Logan (Gavin Warren). He also has his down moments, but for the most part everyone around him seems charmed by the AuzMan. Everyone except Scott.

Things come to a head in the LaRette's marriage when Scott drives his sons back home from a New Year's Eve party in a state of intoxication. He does manage to not kill anyone, but this is the last straw for Teresa. With some guidance from his parents Dick and Marcia (Todd Terry and Patricia Heaton), Scott finally goes to AA meetings. He still talks to Joe, but he also starts bonding with Pastor Rick (Peter Facinelli). Rick, like Scott, is a recovering alcoholic. At last, Scott can bond with the AuzMan and the rest of his family. We know that because at the end of The Unbreakable Boy, it is Scott and not Austin who is doing the voiceover. 

Voiceovers can rise or fall based on a variety of factors. There is the voice itself. There is the dialogue. There is the delivery. I do not know if, in the long run, it was a good decision by writer/director Jon Gunn to have Austin be our narrator. I understand the reasoning behind that. Austin is supposed to be the unbreakable boy. However, the end result seems a bit too cutesy for its own good. 

Again, I understand that we are meant to get this innocent child's viewpoint. However, when Austin tells us that his father is talking to his imaginary friend, the end result is not charming. It makes Scott look genuinely bonkers. This "talking to Joe" business goes on throughout the film. In fact, we are informed at the end that Scott still talks to Joe. The conceit is carried to what I think is an extreme level. Several times do we see "Joe" with Scott. He is with him in the delivery room. He is with him when he is moving a bed. Near the end, Scott asks Joe if he is God. The Unbreakable Boy starts showing Joe with a quasi-divine light, then cuts to Joe laughing and saying that he absolutely was not God.

I think one of my issues with The Unbreakable Boy is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too. This is especially true when it comes to promoting The Unbreakable Boy as a "faith-based film". Yes, you have a pastor character. Yes, Teresa does say that the family will go to church. However, The Unbreakable Boy barely touches on any faith-based elements. Scott has no "come to Jesus" moment. They attend church exactly once. That scene seems created just to show how uncomfortable and ill-prepared Scott is as a father. It also allows for a chance to see Austin run around the sanctuary in his underwear while Scott is desperately trying to both keep an eye on him and change Logan's diapers. 

It is a curious thing how The Unbreakable Boy oddly seems to forget about the IO and concentrate more on the autism as the film goes on. I think that it could also be argued that The Unbreakable Boy is not Austin. It is Scott. AuzMan may be our narrator, but Scott is our focus. A lot of The Unbreakable Boy centers around Scott's struggles both as a father and alcoholic. 

That is not necessarily a bad thing given that Zachary Levi handled the role rather well. For the most part, Levi made Scott into a well-meaning but floundering man. We see this throughout the film, especially whenever he struggles to understand and/or bond with Austin. Levi makes Scott someone who wants to do the right thing but can't figure out how. 

The rest of the cast is a bit hit-or-miss. On the positive side is Patricia Heaton as Scott's mother. She has a surprisingly good moment of comedy when she is raging about Scott having knocked up Teresa. We mostly hear her off-camera in her rant about Scott's poor choices. The running commentary and dish-smashing is not mean or terrifying but more frustrated. Drew Powell also did well as Joe. Granted, he was a figment of Scott's imagination. However, Powell brought a full range of emotions as the fictional Joe. He could be supportive or sarcastic depending on the moment. 

On the negative side is Jacob Laval as Austin. I figure that he gave the performance that director Gunn wanted him to give. It is, however, unfortunate that The Unbreakable Boy makes Austin sometimes look like an unhinged robot rather than an autistic individual. I understand that school bully Tyler (Pilot Bunch) was meant to have manipulated the well-meaning Tyler. He does so by starting the "You can't handle the truth!" speech from A Few Good Men. That is all the prompting that Austin needs before he starts quoting the entire speech verbatim in class. However, the effect does not have the full impact that I think it could have. Something about it just did not sit well with me. When the school principal welcomes him back, she announces to the school assembly, "Everyone's favorite mascot, AUZMAN!". 

Again, something about that just did not sit right with me. 

As a side note, Austin's voiceover points out that Scott has an imaginary friend like Tyler Durgan from Fight Club. I am not sure that Fight Club would be appropriate for any thirteen-year-old. Yet, I digress. 

Peter Facinelli, who was one of the film's producers, has very little to add as Pastor Rick. No suggestion of spiritual guidance. No suggestion of a spiritual life. All we learned is that, like Scott LaRette, Pastor Rick is a recovering alcoholic. Meghann Fahy as Teresa at times was overly dramatic.

I did not end up hating The Unbreakable Boy. It was fine. For me, it fell just a bit short of the crowd-pleaser that it was aiming to be. 

DECISION: C-

Reversal of Fortune: A Review (Review #2160)

REVERSAL OF FORTUNE

It is said that with great power comes great responsibility. Perhaps with great wealth comes great irresponsibility. Reversal of Fortune has everything that a filmgoer could want when it comes to true-life crime stories. There is sex. There is wealth. There is a sinister suspect. With excellent performances and a sly tone, Reversal of Fortune chronicles its lurid story well.

Our story is told primarily in voiceover from the victim herself. Sunny von Bulow (Glenn Close) is a persistent vegetative state. She fell into this sorry state after falling into a coma due to a diabetic shock close to Christmas, 1980. What makes this all the more curious is that this was her second coma. The first was almost a year earlier, but she had recovered. Now, however, there is no way back for our socialite.

Sunny's husband Claus von Bulow (Jeremy Irons) had been slow in getting his wife needed medical attention on both occasions. He had a mistress, soap opera actress Alexandra Isles (Julie Hagerty). He also stood to inherit a great deal of money upon Sunny's death. Could Claus have attempted to murder Sunny not once but twice? He did not get away with it as Sunny managed technically surviving both comas. However, Claus was convicted of attempted murder.

Into this comes crusading Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz (Ron Silver). Claus contacts Dershowitz to help him with his appeal. He took the advice of his newest companion, Andrea Reynolds (Christine Baranski) to "get the Jew". Alan has no interest in the von Bulow case. He does have an interest in the $300 an hour that von Bulow can pay, which Dershowitz will use to help two black teens on death row. Dershowitz soon starts looking into what should be an open-and-shut case. However, is it as open-and-shut as it appears?

Alan and his team of students soon think that Claus von Bulow is being set up. His stepchildren Alexander (Jad Mager) and Ala (Sarah Fearon), along with Sunny's loyal maid Maria (Uta Hagen) all openly detest Claus. Their own attorney had taken copious notes from them, notes that he never shared with Claus' original defense. There is also a published interview with Truman Capote who claimed that Sunny was taking drugs. Could she have injected herself? Could it have been a botched suicide attempt? 

There is also the shady David Marriot (Fisher Stevens). Marriot admits to being a drug pusher but also says that he was a drug mule for Alexander. Could he be a help or hindrance in this case? Everyone is against Claus. Only Claus and Sunny's daughter Cosima (Kristi Hundt) has stayed loyal. 

Claus finally tells his side of the story to Dershowitz and his team. It is of an unhappy wife who ignored medical advice about her hypoglycemia. Could Claus actually be innocent? Alan starts believing it so. There is at least room for doubt. However, will it be enough to reverse Claus' fortune?

Reversal of Fortune has a cold, wry and efficient manner. Those qualities work so well in the film. The three elements that lift Reversal of Fortune to being such a good film were all recognized with Oscar nominations. 

Director Barbet Schroeder received a Best Director nomination. It was well-earned. Reversal of Fortune has a strong pace and excellent performances. From the beginning when we hear Mark Isham's elegant and sophisticated but menacing score, we know that Reversal of Fortune is telling us a dark story beneath its elegant veneer. 

Schroeder balances the past and present with subtle hints. When we are with the comatose Sunny, the film is dominated with blue cinematography. This suggests Sunny's eternal twilight, where she is aware but powerless. He also draws strong performances out of his cast. Glenn Close's performance consists almost entirely of voiceover. It is close to 45 minutes before we see Close not narrating but in the role. She made Sunny into tragic figure, brittle and lost. 

A standout performance is that of Fisher Stevens as the shady David Marriott. He is appropriately sleazy and amoral. He, however, also makes him oddly compelling, like a con man who does not hide that he is a con man.   

Nicholas Kazan's Oscar-nominated screenplay adaptation of Professor Alan Dershowitz's book has an interesting take in metaphorically giving the comatose Sunny a voice in her story. In a nine-minute opening narration Sunny gives us a recap of her case. Glenn Close's delivery is soft, elegant and matter of fact. Sunny's narration has a drop of arsenic, as if hiding her fury within an icy delivery. 

"I never woke from this coma, and I never will" she tells us. "I am what doctors call "persistent vegetative". A vegetable. According to medical experts, I could stay that way for a very long time. Brain dead, body better than ever". 

We go back to Sunny in that sorry state every so often. Of particular note is when we see her getting a massage in the hospital while she discusses her past. It is a dark commentary on how the once idle rich now are in this physically weakened condition. 

Kazan's dark wit continues with the third element to be recognized by the Academy. Unlike Kazan's script or Schroeder's directing, Jeremy Irons won Best Actor for his icy, sarcastic Claus von Bulow. He makes von Bulow's patrician, aristocratic air almost farcical but in a good way. Irons' Claus is a man surprisingly and simultaneously self-aware but clueless. For example, he attempts to integrate himself with Dershowitz's students by making what he thinks are delightful puns.

"What do you give a wife who has everything?", he tells them. After a silent beat, von Bulow replies, "An injection of insulin". Claus then follows that quip with another stab at humor. "How do you define a fear of insulin?". After another silent beat, Claus von Bulow deadpans, "Claus-traphobia". The lines are groan-inducing. However, it is Irons' performance that shows this man is basically not human. 

He does not speak these lines in an avuncular manner. There is not a drip of sarcasm or even a sincere effort at lightening the mood. Instead, Irons delivers all his dialogue with this curious assurance that is eerie, bizarre but endlessly fascinating. Irons never rages as Claus von Bulow. He never seems to express any true and authentic emotions. That is what makes Jeremy Irons in Reversal of Fortune so good. He makes Claus into this enigma, a figure who is unaware of how he comes across. The closest that von Bulow comes to acknowledging his eccentric manner is after another meeting with Dershowitz. "You are a strange man," the law professor tells him. "You have no idea," Irons' von Bulow icily replies.

I would be remiss if I did not mention Ron Silver's turn as Professor Alan Dershowitz. He makes Professor Dershowitz into a moral crusader who is also a shrewd mind. He endures the elites thinly veiled antisemitism. He argues with his students. Yet, Silver never makes Dershowitz into a fool or an idiot. He has a moral core. In fact, it is that moral core that gets him to hitch his wagon to the odd Claus von Bulow. When he is successful in getting a new trial that will ultimately acquit von Bulow, he tells him that it is a legal victory but that morally, von Bulow is on his own.

Despite this long, strange trip, Alan Dershowitz never cracked who Claus von Bulow was. It appears that he ended up not wanting to know.

Reversal of Fortune has the aforementioned Mark Isham score, elegant but sinister. It is a perfect reflection of the story and its characters. It flows well and never has its flashbacks jar the viewer. 

Reversal of Fortune is a dark and elegant story of justice delayed and perhaps denied. The film did a good thing in bringing Sunny back from time to time. So often, the victims or alleged victims are forgotten. Here, she was not. She was even allowed a chance to speak in a way, something the real Sunny would not be able to do for the last 28 years of her life. 

Legally, Claus von Bulow died an innocent man. However, there is still room for doubt. The film ends with Claus at the unlikeliest place: a corner convenience store. He buys some cigarettes and observes that the cashier recognizes him from the tabloids next to him. "Anything else?", she asks, somewhat frightened. "Yes. A vial of insulin", he replies. Smiling in a curious manner, he adds, "Just kidding" and winks at her. Whether Claus von Bulow ultimately got away with his crimes we may never know. We do know that his fortunes, once apparently doomed, were reversed in his favor.

Claus von Bulow: 1926-2019

Martha "Sunny" von Bulow: 1931-2008

DECISION: B+

Peter O'Toole Oscar Nomination Number Three: An Analysis

PETER O'TOOLE OSCAR NOMINATION NUMBER THREE: 

AN ANALYSIS

This one hurts.

The 41st Academy Awards were looking back with their various selections in both Best Picture and Best Actor. The five nominated films for Best Picture were two musicals, a historical film, a Shakespearean adaptation and one contemporary drama. Two of those nominated films also found themselves among the five Best Actor nominees.

The first was our perennial Oscar bridesmaid Peter O'Toole. His nomination for The Lion in Winter was one of that film's seven nods. The other Best Actor nominee was Ron Moody for Oliver! which had the most overall nominations at eleven. The Lion in Winter was the historical film. Oliver! was one of the two musicals (Funny Girl being the other). The other three nominees seemed to have a very small chance of winning.

One of the Best Actor nominees was Alan Arkin for The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. That film received two nominations for Arkin and Sondra Locke in Supporting Actress. The other two were their film's only nominations: Alan Bates in The Fixer and Cliff Robertson for Charly. Films that receive only one nomination rarely win in their nominated category. In the four acting categories, the chances of a win from its sole nomination are even lower. 

Again, it is not impossible for an actor or actress to win the Oscar despite having only one nomination. Overall, though, circumstances have to be such that such a win is plausible to logical. Such a thing does not appear to be the case here. In other occasions, an actor winning in their category despite being that film's only nomination has other factors that push them to victory. There can be an "overdue" narrative where someone wins the Oscar after many failed nominations. There can be a weak field where that sole nominee can overpower the others. Conversely, there can be such a strong field where that sole nominee can end up as a consensus choice after the others beat each other up.

So far, none of those factors appear to be in play. Three of the five nominees (Bates, Moody and Robertson) were on their first nomination. One (Arkin) was on his second. O'Toole was the most nominated of the five and he was just on his third. Curiously, those same three first-time nominees (Bates, Moody and Robertson) would never be nominated again. Alan Arkin would be the only one of this year's five apart from O'Toole to return to the Oscar race; eventually he would win a competitive Oscar, although it took almost forty years for him to get his chance.  

As a side note, the lack of nominations save for Best Actor curiously would, in the future, affect O'Toole as the years and nominations went on. Out of the five future nominations that he would receive, only two would be for films where he was not that film's sole nomination. In 1969 his film Goodbye, Mr. Chips would get two nominations. In 1980, O'Toole's nominated performance in The Stunt Man would be one of that film's three nominations. His fifth, seventh and eighth nominations would be just for his performance and for nothing else. 

This nomination would also be the last time that O'Toole's nomination came from a film that was up for Best Picture. 

Everything looked to be set for Peter O'Toole to win on his third nomination. It would have not been a surprise if he had won. He was not overdue per se, but he was in a successful film that eclipsed his fellow nominees in terms of box office and nominations save for Ron Moody.  His reviews were mostly positive. He was facing three nominees who were both on their first nominations and their film's sole nominations. 

He was also, in a curious turn, recreating a previous performance. O'Toole's second nomination was for playing the same role as King Henry II. He had been nominated four years earlier for his performance as Henry II in Becket. The Lion in Winter was not a sequel. However, Peter O'Toole joined a rare group of actors who were nominated multiple times for playing the same character. 

Looking at past history, it looked like Peter O'Toole was the odds-on favorite. He was not a prohibitive frontrunner. However, he looked to have the strongest chances of winning. However, when Burt Lancaster opened the envelope, it was not Peter O'Toole's name that he read out. So, what happened?

First, let us look at the competition that year. The nominees for Best Actor in a Leading Role of 1968 were:

Alan Arkin in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter

Alan Bates in The Fixer

Ron Moody in Oliver!

Peter O'Toole in The Lion in Winter

Cliff Robertson in Charly

It looked to be a two-man race between Peter O'Toole and Ron Moody. Two of the three first-time nominees (Bates and Robertson) were going up against stronger competition. As stated, Bates and Robertson were their film's sole nomination. Arkin was one of only two of his film's nominations. This race does not seem to have someone dominate the film. There, however, does not seem enough of a strong competition as to have Academy members make any of them a consensus choice. 

The Academy thought well enough of The Lion in Winter to give it seven nominations and three wins. The Lion in Winter made Oscar history when Ingrid Bergman announced Best Actress. Opening the envelope, Bergman said, "The winner...it's a tie!". Bergman was so shocked that she muddled Katharine Hepburn's film as "Lion in the Winter" instead of The Lion in Winter before announcing Barbra Streisand for Funny Girl also won Best Actress. However, Hepburn's costar in Lion in the Winter lost Best Actor to an actor whose film received one nomination. 

How exactly did Cliff Robertson win for his first and only nomination? How was this somewhat small film able to overcome the more nominated film? I can guess that there may have been one to two factors. First, Robertson played a mentally challenged individual in Charly. A performance that shows a character with physical or mental limitations seems to be taken as an acting feat. That might have swayed enough voters to see Robertson playing someone who starts out mentally challenged, transitions to genius and then reverts to his original state as authentic acting.

The second factor is not a pretty one. Robertson may simply have had a better Oscar campaign. It was well-known that Charly was a passion project for Robertson. He had played the character on television. He had bought the film rights to guarantee that he would star in a film version. He even hired the screenwriters, firing the first (William Goldman) when dissatisfied with the results. Robertson hustled hard for his film. That hustle probably included campaigning for the nomination and the eventual win. 

While I figure the other nominated films campaigned for Oscars, I think O'Toole was not glad-handling prospective Oscar voters like Robertson was. Neither he nor Bates nor Robertson attended, though in fairness Robertson was filming in the Philippines and was denied permission to attend. 

Time Magazine a few weeks after Robertson's surprise win made an example of him as essentially buying votes. Robertson or his team took out full-page ads in all the trade publications that it could, pushing and promoting his nomination. This kind of campaigning is nothing new. Perhaps the nadir was the campaign that The Alamo costar Chill Wills launched for Best Supporting Actor. His ads saying that his costars were praying harder for Wills than those at the Alamo were so garish that they became an embarrassment to all concerned. 

Exactly how and how many voters were swayed enough to tip the race to Robertson over O'Toole is purely speculative. However, it ultimately worked as Cliff Robertson won the Best Actor Oscar. I think in the long run, though, it was a Pyrrhic victory. Few people nowadays remember that Cliff Robertson won Best Actor for Charly. I think few people nowadays even remember Charly. A contemporary of mine expressed genuine shock when I told him.    

Peter O'Toole, as stated in past analyses, was respected. He, however, was not loved. Never underestimate the power of love when it comes to selecting Oscar winners. I also think that there is something of a wild card here. Cliff Robertson and Alan Arkin were the only Americans nominated for Best Actor that year. Could anti-British sentiment have played a role in O'Toole's defeat? It does not strike me as likely, but not impossible.

And now, for my ranking. Going from Best to Worst, my ranking goes as follows:

Peter O'Toole

Ron Moody

Alan Arkin

Alan Bates

Cliff Robertson

I look on Robertson's win and O'Toole's loss as simply inexplicable. Peter O'Toole dominated the screen as Henry II. He was a man filled with rage, with schemes, but also with great fears. O'Toole makes Henry II a man full of lust for life. Proud to the point of foolishness but with a sharp mind, O'Toole's performance towers over all his fellow nominees.

I flipped a bit between Ron Moody and Alan Arkin for who should be in second place. I still could be persuaded to flip them and have Arkin second and Moody third. Curiously, Moody and Arkin were the only nominees to attend that year's ceremony. I ultimately put Moody ahead of Arkin because Moody had to do more. He had to do the singing and dancing in Oliver! However, Moody also had to show some dramatic and comic non-singing and dancing moments. Moody's Fagin was a schemer and survivor. He was, in his own way, protective of his gang of tween hoods. He had to maintain a balance between Oliver Reed's brutal Bill Sykes and Fagin's more conciliatory manner. In turns amusing and dramatic, Ron Moody did an excellent job.

Alan Arkin was hampered a bit in that more often than not he looked the same in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. By that I mean that he had to do a lot of staring to communicate as his character was a deaf-mute. It is a curiosity that two of the nominees were for playing disabled characters. Again, I think Arkin did a fine job in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. I could flip him and Moody. Ultimately though, Moody barely edges Arkin out.

Alan Bates in The Fixer is pretty much forgotten now. The Fixer is as of this writing unavailable either on DVD or streaming. If Bates' performance or The Fixer itself were better known and/or remembered, I still would have ranked it lower. Bates was pretty one-note in The Fixer. The subject of antisemitism is an important one. However, both the film and Bates' performance had a sluggish quality to them that made them fall short of being good, let alone Oscar worthy.

Cliff Robertson goes at the end because of a curious reason. This sounds odd, but Robertson is too smart for this character. You can see a calculated manner to his Charly Gordon. I found it too methodical, as if he was concentrating on how to make Charly this mentally disabled person. He was never Charly Gordon to me. He was Cliff Robertson. The acting was too pronounced, too calculated, for me to think it should outrank any of the others. It did not help that Charly and Robertson became almost laughable in the third act. Charly's transition to a hippie biker or biker hippie was in turns goofy and bizarre. 

I think Cliff Robertson's Best Actor win for Charly will rank as one of the worst Best Actor wins of all time when I do a Best Actor Retrospective. It is pretty much a forgotten win which has not stood the test of time.

Peter O'Toole should have won Best Actor for The Lion in Winter over Cliff Robertson for Charly.

In conclusion, the Academy made the wrong choice in not awarding Peter O'Toole the Best Actor Oscar on his third nomination. 

Woman of the Year: A Review

WOMAN OF THE YEAR

"I take two steps forward; I take two steps back. We come together cause Opposites Attract".  So sang Paula Abdul and the Wild Pair on Opposites Attract. While Woman of the Year may not be that peppy, it fits the story of mismatched newspaper columnists. Held as a romantic comedy, I found Woman of the Year a disappointment given its lofty reputation. 

New York Chronicle's foreign affairs correspondent Tess Harding (Katharine Hepburn) makes dismissive remarks about the need for sports during this, no ordinary time. This draws the ire of her fellow Chronicle reporter Sam Craig (Spencer Tracy). He takes umbrage at her haughty suggestion that baseball be suspended for the war's duration. Craig, the Chronicle's sports correspondent, writes a terse article berating Harding's snobbishness. Harding gives as good as she gets in print. This internal battle of the sexes is too much for their editor, who orders both to knock it off.

Once they meet in the flesh, both see that there is more than meets their eyes. Craig is quickly smitten with Harding. She in turn seems to take a shining to Craig. Soon, they start seeing each other socially. This is not easy for both, especially Craig. He is more comfortable with his sports pals, especially ex-boxer Pinky Peters (William Bendix), than with her intellectual polymath set. Sam especially detests Tess' snobbish secretary Gerald How (Dan Tobin). They are very different people. They are also very much in love.

They marry, delighting her diplomat father William J. Harding (Minor Watson) and her favorite aunt Ellen Whitcomb (Fay Bainter). Despite getting married in a fever, Tess stubbornly refuses to alter anything about herself. She will continue supporting cause after cause. She will take little note of how little time they spend together. She has little issue having Yugoslavian refugee Dr. Lubbeck (Ludwig Stossel) crash their wedding night even if Lubbeck was unaware of the nuptials. Over and over, Tess continuously puts her own needs, wants and careers ahead of both her marriage and her husband.

One would think the low point was when she brings a Greek child refugee to live with them without so much as asking Sam. That, however, is slightly higher than what she does when she wins "Woman of the Year". Sam has finally had it and promptly leaves. A surprise wedding from her maiden Aunt Ellen prompts Tess to rethink things. Could she manage as just Mrs. Sam Craig or is there a way for her to be Tess Harding Craig? 

There is a story about Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn's first meeting prior to making Woman of the Year. Hepburn stood 5'7" and wore heels when she met the 5'10" Tracy (though I suspect that he was shorter). She apologized for standing slightly taller and said that she would be more careful about her footwear. Woman of the Year producer Joseph Mankiewicz, who was with Tracy, looked at Hepburn and said, "Don't worry, Kate. He'll cut you down to his size". 

Woman of the Year is the first of an eventual nine pairings of Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. I can see what made them work so well as one of the great screen duos. They are a strong blending: her patrician air and his average man manner. Tracy and Hepburn balanced each other quite well. It is to where I wonder if both were playing versions of their real-life themselves. Woman of the Year shows how despite their differences there was an immediate and longstanding attraction. 

Ring Lardner, Jr. and Michael Kanin's Oscar-winning screenplay is quite clever with the wordplay. After finally meeting, Sam rushes to catch up with the leggy Tess. As she stands on the staircase, he starts going up. "Isn't the sports department downstairs?", the WASP Harding asks. Sheepishly replying that it was, she asks, "Well, aren't you going in the wrong direction?". He looks at her and replies, "Maybe I am".

Perhaps it is just me, but I found double meaning in that exchange. Sam is saying that he is going in the wrong direction physically. However, could he also be suggesting that his pursuit of Tess might also be going in the wrong direction?

The film has much excellent wordplay. Tess, in a state of inebriation, looks at Sam who tells her, "I love you". "Even when I'm sober?", she asks. He replies, "Even when you're brilliant". When they get back to Tess' apartment, he admires a painting. "It's a little too high to reach", he says. Tess answers, "I'm not", the meaning clear and probably as daring as the Hays Code will allow.

After all, Sam did not take advantage of the situation, and they were not together until after their quickie wedding.  

Woman of the Year has been celebrated as a female empowerment film, showcasing the woman as the dominant figure. Therefore, the final scene of Tess' total ineptness in the kitchen seems to disappoint viewers. I have a different interpretation. I did not find Tess Harding empowering. I found her horrid.

Repeatedly, Tess Harding shows how callous, self-centered, snobbish, indifferent and insensitive she can be. And those are her positive attributes. Over and over again, we see how Tess repeatedly not only refuses but does not even consider making any adjustments for Sam. I think it is unfair to say that marriages involve the woman making all the changes to please a man. Marriage is a compromise where two people fine-tune their individualism for a joint life. Woman of the Year, it seems, celebrates someone who will not rather than cannot change.

The nadir of Tess' thorough awfulness is in her dealings with Chris, the Greek orphan. Everything involving this situation shows Tess to be a total monster. She takes Chris because she is the head of a refugee group and is expected to take one. She not only never talked to Sam about it but never even considered it. The most appalling aspect is when she and Sam prepare to go to her Woman of the Year dinner.

Sam expects someone to be at the apartment to babysit while they are out. Tess tells Sam that there will be no one. She expects Chris to be fine alone and unsupervised.  She also seems genuinely puzzled over why Sam is so angry about all this. 

Let us go over what has transpired. Tess became a traumatized orphan's ward to save face. Tess did not discuss bringing said traumatized orphan into the home she has with her husband. Tess did not even consider discussing bringing in said traumatized orphan into their home. Tess had no issue leaving said traumatized orphan alone and unsupervised for hours on end so she could attend a dinner celebrating her. She thinks that said traumatized orphan can easily fend for himself should he wake up to find an empty house.

And this is what people say is empowering? 

I hope that people bemoaning the ending that shows Tess to be clueless in the kitchen could be just as upset about Tess' horrendous mothering skills. At least Joan Crawford had someone stay with the children while she was out.

I cannot fault the performances. As stated, Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn seemed to be playing versions of themselves. Tracy had a nice, affable manner to his Sam. He has a surprisingly light touch for comedy, even when it comes at his expense. Hepburn makes Tess into a confident, sophisticated and intelligent woman even if she has no real common sense.

There is strong but small supporting work from Fay Bainter as Tess' loving but at times frustrated aunt. She shows Aunt Ellen as aware that independence is good, but a man beside you is just as good. William Bendix was fun as Pinkie, forever regaling anyone within earshot of his glory days in the ring.

As for the film's ending, I do not see the controversy the way others do. Hepburn shows a surprising ability for physical comedy. I did not see this kitchen scene as her losing power to a man. I saw it as a snobbish woman, who had everything done for her, finally having to figure out things that most of us know. She was going to leave a child alone for hours while she went to a party celebrating her greatness. Her getting a little egg on her shoes seems small in comparison. 

As I finished Woman of the Year, I did end up liking it. I liked how Sam Craig took down Gerald Howe (Dan Tobin), Tess' smug secretary. We did not see it, but we got the gist of it. I think its reputation is overrated. However, there was more to like than dislike. I do not think that Tess Harding Craig was a true Woman of the Year. Maybe Woman of a Season. 

DECISION: B-